Socially responsible life cycle assessment: organizational activity for the greater good
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Traditionally, life cycle assessment (LCA) has focused on environmental aspects, but integrating social aspects in LCA has gained traction among scholars and practitioners. This study aims to review key social life cycle assessment (SLCA) themes, namely, drivers and barriers of SLCA implementation, methodology and measurement metrics, classification of initiatives to improve SLCA and customer perspectives in SLCA. Design/methodology/approach A total of 148 scientific papers extracted from the Web of Science database were used and analyzed using bibliometric and content analysis. Findings The findings suggest that the existing research ignores several aspects of SCLA, which impedes positive growth in topical scholarship, and the study proposes a classification of SLCA research paths to enrich future research. This study contributes positively to SLCA by further developing this area, and as such, this research is a primer to gain deeper knowledge about the state-of-the-art in SLCA as well as to foresee its future scope and challenges. Originality/value The study provides an up-to-date review of extant research pertaining to SLCA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".